The bureaucracy is criminal
I have recently volunteered to hear kids at our school read. This means that I need an enhanced CRB disclosure. I can completely understand why schools need to ensure that people in contact with the children need to make some checks. Children need to be protected from dodgy characters.
What I fail to understand is why my existing enhanced CRB disclosure, obtained in July this year, is not acceptable to Sandwell Council. I got that disclosure for helping on a young people’s residential summer holiday, where I had far more access to youngsters than I will sitting in a classroom once a week. Our sensible diocese did accept my existing disclosure for my work with young people in church on Sundays. The diocesan policy is to accept ones less than six months old where the applicant has been known to the church all that time.
When I made a comment on my Facebook status about this earlier today, and got the following comments from Vicar’s wife friends:
- The Nurse told me ‘I was going in last year but then I got all that to fill in during the summer in order to carry on this year and I must admit, I haven’t done them yet. I’d mostly been helping my own child in the classroom and hearing them all read, do I really need a police check for that!? I’m going to need a police check to look after them at home next!’
- Dr Life commented ‘If had had them for everything I needed them for I would have needed 6 at one point last year’.
- Snap said ‘I’ve got 5 current ones for various things I do. It’s crazy, especially as they’re only really relevant from the day you are ‘certified’ and different organisations have different guidelines on how often they need to be redone’.
Sandwell Council, bless their hearts, like to make it even more of a pain. So you have to go the council’s main offices for an interview to fill out the form. Apparently this was because the schools weren’t completing the forms correctly. I don’t see why schools can’t be trained to do it right. Although the form is now ridiculous as half of it doesn’t need to be completed.
And Sandwell want me to provide 2 referees (although the form didn’t say how long the referees have to have known me). CRB no longer ask for this, but the council do. And they want my full employment history including all voluntary work! I can’t remember my employment and volunteering history for the last twenty plus years. The lady at the council then told me that the school can decide how much employment history is required and that the form had been approved by the council AND the unions. She said that it ought to say that referees should have known me at least two years, but that too was up to the school. Thankfully I think the school will be sensible.
Our head teacher is about to send a letter out to parents asking for folk to volunteer to read with the children – currently no-one is helping out at all. But if they have to fill in forms, provide referees and long term histories and travel a 4 mile round trip in order to do it, I don’t hold out much hope of floods of volunteers. Many families round here don’t have cars, so the trip to the council would take a whole morning.
I’m going to encourage people to volunteer, but I’m also going to see if the council will come down here for the interviews or let me help people fill out their forms first. Surely the council want to be encouraging volunteering rather than hindering it with bureaucracy?
The council lady I spoke to said that the new Independent Safeguarding Authority should streamline things ‘but they keep on putting it back’. In the meantime money is being wasted all round the country as people have to collect multiple forms and fill in extra paperwork to satisfy the total lack of trust that now characterises our society. I wonder what the record is for multiple CRB forms. Any advance on five?
The Vicar's Wife 
I’ve got 4, 3 for working with young people and one for working with vulnerable adults!
Welcome to the Vicarage Beth. And sounds like you have a good haul of forms.
I have already got a full enhanced CRB which was not acceptable by any of the local school as it was done by an organisation in wolverhampton so, I am waiting for 1 CRB to work in Sandwell schools and another one to work in Dudley school and both school are on the same road probably less than half a mile away. I hope they get all this online soon and schools can access informaton through one integrated system.
Hi rukhsana and welcome to the Vicarage. I’m not convinced that any of these organisations are going to get their systems integrated. I’m already dreading helping a friend who wants to volunteer at the school with her paperwork!
About 3 years ago I was volunteering to do the church summer club (Pyramid Rock IIRC), and was doing the usual CRB stuff (had been through it all 3 or 4 times for summer camp and Explorers so didn’t expect a problem).
What I got in the post was a letter saying that someone else had ‘similar details’ to me, and I was required to go to the local police station and provide my fingerprints in order to prove that I was not the person they had on file.
Because the need for leaders wasn’t too dire at the time, I agreed with the holiday club leaders that I’d just drop out. Partly on the principal that I shouldn’t have to prove that I’m not a criminal!
Now I’ve got another CRB going through the system. I’m resigned to providing my prints to plod in a few weeks, but it will be something that I’ll write to my MP/MEP about if it happens.
I’ve also put my name forward for posisbly being a governor at our son’s primary school, which will mean doing all that again!
An industry has grown around CRBs which probably generates 1000’s of jobs, so I guess it’s not in the Govt’s interests to make it more efficient at the moment.
GRRRRRRRRR
I have several on the go right now for the various different training organisations / local authorities that I train for.
I can appreciate that each one wants to cover themselves by being seen to be doing their own check rather than rely on someone else.. but each time there is a fee paid and it just seems like such a waste of money.
We should be checked, but it should be a centralised system where you have a current CRB and all agencies can quickly check against it.
I’m part of a team of 12 readers from our church family who go into one of the primarry schools to hear readers. Because we are a church group, the school accepts our church CRBs, thankfully. It’s a great work to be involved in – the Head is a Christian, though not worshipping locally.
During my husbands curacy, one of the people I helped at Toddlers had no fewer than 5 CRB forms all current – for church youth work, Pathfinder venture, her work as support teacher through the tutoring service and 2 others that I forget the details of. There must be a better system than this! So much unecessary paperwork – and still those who would harm children get through….
Thanks for your comments Peter, Danny and Chris. Our local paper rang up tonight wanting to run a story on this. Maybe we should all be lobbying MPs about it too. This has been going on like this for too long. I had a conversation with a CRB check coordinator about how there were plans to streamline things about 3 years ago. But maybe the government have just lost steam to change things now?
I have very grave doubts about the efficacy of CRB checks – they strike me as being a little like MOT checks on cars in that they are only really valid on the day they are produced.
My other grave concern is what do they prove? They do not prove that someone is not a danger to our children! I believe they only show that there is nothing on record and possibly only that the person hasn’t been caught doing anything inappropriate.
I am equally certain that many people are put off by the whole CRB thing especially say someone in their fifties who may have done something silly in their youth that they would rather nobody knew about and yet in the case of an enhanced CRB check it is brought up because it shows on the check.
There is a whole raft of silliness as well about the non transferability of these things – given that the CRB is a central government organisation I would have hoped that one check that is within a certain time frame should be acceptable across the board.
I thinbk Peter B has hit the nail on the head when he suggests it is more about the 1000’s of jobs this must vreate.
I am 52 years old with 2 children and 2 grandchildren. Was charged with assault in 1976, given a conditional discharge for 2 years and never again been in any trouble what so ever. Recently became unemployed and have been honest when asked on application forms whether I have any spent convictions. Each application has been turned down and I believe the offence 34 years ago to be the reason of my failure to secure at least an interview. I would like to work within the NHS sector but a CRB check would be a requirement of employment. I agree that checks need to be done but feel that employers can be put off by an offence commited some 34 years ago that isn’t related to an offence towards children and vunerable adults.
As a foreigner living overseas, and total outsider to this, I would agree that lobbying MPs for a centralised record system is probably the best way forward. Then one check on a regular basis would cover a person over all roles they are taking on which need CRB checks
I’m with you on the silliness of the number of CRB checks needed, because of course they’re only valid on the day issued, for that organisation. But do you see what’s happening here? The govt have introduced something that, as someone has noted, creates a good many jobs. And then… we’re incited to campaign for a national database of officially innocent people! That’s essentially what’s being suggested, isn’t it? Having everyone on file. A national database of convictions makes some sense – but we are innocent until proved guilty. Even if it’s awful hassle, I’d rather that someone check that I’m not guilty every time, than that I apply to be on a database of the innocent. Next up: you’re not on it, you’re not allowed to have children? They make sure you satisfy current “liberal” value criteria before you’re on it? There’s a good reason for a lack of centralised innocence record.
Argh, CRB forms, bane of my life. 5 isn’t the highest number I’ve heard of. Some of our teachers teach at more than 5 schools, plus swimming clubs, brownies etc, and of course as you say they only provide proof that a person hasn’t been caught doing something wrong up to the date on the form.
Thank you all for your comments. I wonder why councils/voluntary bodies etc are generally unable to accept each others CRB forms?
What is it that make Sandwell Council think that a CRB check by Dudley Council is likely to be no good? The photographer who took my pic for the paper had three CRB disclosures himself – two from the councils I just mentioned and another for the Scouts, as he’s a leader.
An online friend of mine has …. wait for it …. 14!
Re the fingerprints … would they then be stored on the database?
All we like sheep – fall into line and do what we’re told. What happens if you don’t have a CRB for a post where you ‘should’?
The reason, as I understand it, that CRB’s are not transferable is that the formal response that’s provided to the sponsoring organisation (the school, or whatever) is only of any criminal convictions that might be against the individual.
However, some people have never been actually convicted but there are concerns about past behaviour. I understand that in these cases an informal response may be given to the sponsoring organisation but this will only be verbal. This informal response may obviously lead the sponsoring organisation to decline the offer of help.
However, that individual will still be given a clear CRB.
If CRB’s were transferable, that individual could now take their clear CRB to another organisation but that new organisation wouldn’t have the advantage of the informal response. It is for this reason that I understand everyone has to apply for a new CRB for every position so that, if necessary, informal responses get to each organisation.
I’m making no judgement on whether informal negative responses, where someone has never been convicted of anything, are right or wrong – but that’s the way I understand the system works.
The new barring & vetting scheme that the Government’s introduced will go some way to making this informal intellegence more readily available without necessarily going through the full CRB process.
(Currently have 4 CRB’s to my name)
If that is the case, it is outrageous. Essentially it is saying that the CRB is itself worthless, but it is merely the front for the passing on of accusations and slander.
Well worthless might be a little too strong, as clearly it does identify people who have been convicted, but it certainly has its limitations, which is why the new vetting and barring scheme was brought in.
John R asked above “What happens if you don’t have a CRB for a post where you ’should’?” and it’s really down to the sponsoring organisation, not you – so the onus is on the school (or whatever organisation) to undertake the CRB check, not on you as an individual. However, it isn’t a legal requirement, it’s more a matter of policy that certain organisations undertake CRB checks (although there are clear guidelines as to when organisations should perform CRB checks, although many go further than the guidelines – for example, the Scout Association’s own policy mandates CRB checks for people who really are outside the requirements specified in the guidelines). So if a school fails to CRB someone working with their children then it is a disciplinary matter (and could well be considered a gross breach resulting in dismissal) but not a crime in the legal sense.
However, the vetting and barring scheme does seek to change this. It will be a criminal offense for organisations to ’employ’ anyone working with children or vunerable adults on a frequent or intensive basis that haven’t been properly vetted.
The new scheme will also inform organisations if an individual’s status under the scheme changes (addressing one of the major criticisms of the current CRB process that it is only ‘valid’ on the day of the individual clearance).
Finally, it also imposes legal responsibilities on organisations to notify the ISA (who will run the new scheme) if anything happens that might affect someone’s status under the scheme.
CRB’s will still also be required for some positions, but for many an apporpriate check under the new vetting and barring scheme is supposed to be sufficient.
Thank you for the comments everybody. This system is obviously a pain for many law abiding folk who want to be of use to society.
When I went for my CRB interview with Sandwell Council, the lady explained to me about the ‘soft information’ that they get which doesn’t show up on the form.
What is not clear is why people could not produce an existing CRB, together with any address change and the name of the position for which the clearance is needed. The agency could just then ‘renew’ the existing disclosure and supply any additional ‘soft info’. They DO NOT NEED to see my birth certificate for the umpteenth time.
Will a clearance from the VBS be valid indefinitely? It’s the lack of transferability of CRB clearances that bugs me most. I can see that someone’s suitability should be assessed, but not that it should be continually assessed as though we are all latent criminals just looking for a chance to offend. We are all sinners, but the vast majority of us are not about to abuse those we are offering to help.
I totally agree, those CRB forms are such a pain! Whilst I was a student I moved house about 4 times. I can’t remember all the details of every house I have lived in. Its so frustrating.
I really want to be involved with helping children. I sometimes do short term volunteering for charities and go to events through Leap Anywhere which makes it all really easy and no CRB’s!
Hi Ruth and welcome to the Vicarage.
I’m very surprised that you’re able to volunteer to work with children without a CRB check. How is that possible?
Probably because Ruth doesn’t have unsupervised access to any children? If there’s no unsupervised access then (depending on the organisations rules) you may well not need to be CRBed.
The difficulty (or downfall) of course comes where something starts out with no unsupervised access, but over time the individual gets more involved, the individual starts becoming more helpful, starts taking charge of one or two children, etc. and soon people forget that the individual never had a CRB in the first place. All to easy to see how anyone so minded, could circumvent the system.
And, of course, a CRB only highlights if anyone has actually been convicted of something anyway (and only on the day it’s issued).
Hi thanks for the welcome. What I’m doing is not volunteering directly with children, but rather volunteering within a variety of short term opportunities such as working in a soup kitchen or a river cleanup. Another thing I do is go to events put on by children’s charities, I like to get involved in the events as it is a chance to help the children indirectly.
If you want to find out what I am talking about check out this website – http://www.leapanywhere.com/
They are trying to make a difference by getting as many people as possible to do their bit for charity. They also encourage corporations to get their employees involved in volunteering and fufil their corporate social responsibility. It’s a great way to do some good in an easy hassle free way. It would be an ideal thing to do whilst waiting for CRB forms to come through aswell.
Hi Ruth
I had a look at the website but it seemed a bit complicated to me. Perhaps it is of more use to companies who are looking for projects to involve their staff in. But if you know anyone who’s looking for a volunteering opportunity, I’m sure any local church would be able to help!
I was also puzzled by the strapline “Leap is the home of doing good, having fun and getting rewarded” – the implication seemed to be that you got some sort of monetary reward, but I may have misread them. Are Leap paid by the charities for publicising their events?